User talk:Winged Blades of Godric/Archive 15

Happy New Year, Winged Blades of Godric!

Happy New Year!

Winged Blades of Godric,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
–Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 00:35, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Same to you:)Winged Blades^Godric 09:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

need some understanding about a revert you made

Greetings,

You recently made a revert on one of my edits here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mamata_Banerjee&oldid=818045280

I added criticisms to the criticisms section from a reputed source from a reputed source (The Hindu newspaper)

Any particular reason for reverting that?

Ghulamkhan3219 (talk) 07:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)-The article in question is a very controversial topic .Many people have many ways on perceiving a particular event especially when linked with such a controversial person. This is why unless multiple sources report a big issue we don't include such stuff in the article.(If we were to include every bit of criticism in the article it would become almost an attack page) — comment added by Force Radical«talk🎄contribs» 16:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Force Radical has hit the nail on the head:)Winged Blades^Godric 08:33, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks folks Ghulamkhan3219 (talk) 14:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

Winged Blades of Godric,
Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy New Year to you and yours! North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:58, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

– Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year}} to user talk pages.

@Northamerica1000:--Thanks.Best wishes to you too! I hope our exchange at the 3RRN case hadn’t soured your festive mood.Regards:)Winged Blades^Godric 09:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Help for an article

Dear Mr, I just Newbies who want to write an article about my fav football club I have a fav football club that play in highest level in my country Indonesia, but when I try to write about my club's Super Star (Hari Nur Yulianto) in english version, They deleted my article. even 2 times. you know, in Indonesian version the article about Hari Nur Yulianto keep existing.

How can this article keep existing in wikipedia? as a newbies I need your help Luthfi Waskitojati (talk) 09:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Giada del Drago

Thanks for message. In normal circumstances I might look again, and perhaps attempt to head off the 'postcode lottery' which Wikipedia seems to have become. As a former journalist, editor and author, I'm all for editorial rules and guidelines, but only if they are applied consistently and fairly, and experience leads me to conclude this is not (and perhaps has never been) the case. Some editors pass an article with a nod and a cheery wave, while others seem determined to treat it as some kind of Spanish Inquisition. Picknick99 (talk) 10:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Picknick99:First things first, your language and choice of words was quite great and may provide some insights into the appeal of our processes to newcomers :) Coming to the subject, whilst reviewing is often dependent on the mind-scape of the reviewer and his/her discretion (Otherwise all AFDs etc. will be showered with !votes of only one kind), it's much more dependent on the individual qualities of the produced articles.Regards:)Winged Blades^Godric 10:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Miroslav Juhn

I removed the proposed deletion and added more information on Miroslav Juhn and more references. I also now mentioned that he is considered one of the forerunners of the Praxis School. Nbanic (talk) 12:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nbanic:--Thanks! I will not proceed to an AFD.Winged Blades^Godric 09:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

Hello, Winged Blades of Godric. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 03:55, 3 January 2018 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Just to make sure I don't get lost in your spam filter, apologies if you've seen it already. :) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 03:55, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...Just seen:) Looking at the details. Will probably chime in tomorrow! Regards:)Winged Blades^Godric 04:16, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karambavane

Hi. While I definitely think the article should be kept, not sure it can be speedied. Of the 6 criteria, only 1 or 3 would seem to be able to be used. #3 would not seem to apply, since the nom did attempt to find out if the place did exist, and #1 doesn't seem to fit since the nom was not withdrawn. What are your thoughts? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:13, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NOT BUREAUCRACY.AFDs are super-consistent on upholding WP:NGEO and there's not a snowball's chance in hell that this will result in some other result.If anybody is very insistent on the red-tapes, I will re-open but that will lead to nothing save a waste of more community time.Regards:) Winged Blades^Godric 03:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfinished close

Thanks for your close here. I see the Tfd notice is still at Module:Break/doc and you might like to remove that. Johnuniq (talk) 09:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq:--

Done Many thanks for the reminder:) I see that the automated script ain't so clever, yet:)Winged Blades^Godric 09:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RfC at Talk:Kashmir conflict

Hi WBG, are you planning to add a "summary of the conclusions" for this RfC? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3:Obviously !! Got stuck in RL.Some time tomorrow:)Winged Blades^Godric 17:11, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Winged Blades^Godric 17:11, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3:--Both

Done.Winged Blades^Godric 04:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RfC of deletion at Talk:Kashmir conflict

I have taken a count of the participants on the second RfC on Talk:Kashmir conflict. Those in favour of keeping the controversial sections number 6 and are outnumbered by those in favour of removal (they have 7). The latter also have more policy based arguments. What should be the next appropriate step? I will refrain from any action myself on the article until you say whether the removals are to be done or not at this time. Awaiting your instructions. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 11:10, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JosephusOfJerusalem:Please wait and read why discussions aren't head-counts.I am nearing completion of reading of all the background stuff prior to the RFC and will expect to close both the RFCs within 24-36 hours.Cheerio:)Winged Blades^Godric 11:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is good news Godric. I haven't done just a headcount but have also counted the citations of policies and weighed the arguments of all the sides (and found the argument of inherent POV in the controversial sections very heavy). I see that both the RfCs are closed. It is your call now. Cheers, :) JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 11:25, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JosephusOfJerusalem:Both the RFCs are not curr. closed.They are in the process of being closed.I will not disclose anything more on the substance of my close, until I post my closing statement.Check back, once I've posted and iff, you're nor satisfied, you may challenge the closure at Adminstrator's noticeboard.Winged Blades^Godric 11:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, will check back with you. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 11:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JosephusOfJerusalem:--One

Done.Winged Blades^Godric 15:49, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Winged Blades of Godric:-- Thanks. Though I do have some concerns I will wait for you to finalise the result of number 2 before I comment as you know both the RfC's are fundamentally linked. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JosephusOfJerusalem:--You need not ping me on my t/p:) And, I would not mind listening to your concerns, very now, though!Winged Blades^Godric 16:09, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is alright mate. I think I have a solution but it depends on the result of the second RfC. Will wait for that. Cheers! :) JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 16:12, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you elaborate somewhat on the ways forward you have in mind for resolving the dispute in the second RfC? JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 18:16, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JosephusOfJerusalem:--Obviously planned to do! Now,

Done.Winged Blades^Godric 04:57, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Half finished RFC close

Were you going to do anything with this? --wooden superman 14:45, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done I was under the false impression that this was already done:)Winged Blades^Godric 15:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but your close isn't clear enough. It seems a user is already using it as an excuse to leave "telenovela" as an acceptable disambiguator, something it has never been per the guideline, and something there is no consensus for now. --wooden superman 15:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of such edits will be reqd. to fool-proof my closure:)Winged Blades^Godric 15:31, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See the following: Talk:Victoria (TV series)#Requested move 5 January 2018 (withdrawn), [1], and [2]. --wooden superman 15:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Alex's interpretation.Current status-quo is maintained everywhere.If anybody wishes to change it from either-side, he/she floats a new RM and waits, pending it's closure which shall be solely based on the merits of that particular RM (which may very well consist of restatement(s) of the points made out in this RFC).Winged Blades^Godric 15:39, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Surely we should be following the status quo of the guideline, not the status quo of the rogue articles that were incorrectly named against the naming guideline. --wooden superman 15:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. It is literally impossible for an RM which failed to come to consensus to overrule a guideline. The close should be revised, as it's poorly worded, confusing, and leading to disruption at RMs. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 15:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. No consensus generally means the guideline remains what it is, which in this case means no "(telenovela)" disambiguators. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:07, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely.That doesn't mean that all the articles which have been using the system for long gets automatically reverted to prev./new titles.If you wish for that, get a clear oppose result.Winged Blades^Godric 16:13, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Oh....And, I have missed an imp. point in rel. to RMs on entirely new topics.Winged Blades^Godric 16:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)And, here's a difference between one RFC closure resulting in No Consensus and another in Opposed.I feel that is entirely within the purview of closer's discretion to generate a Status-quo clause, in cases of NC.And, it's only a guideline which can have exceptions.Still, since you have expressed concerns with my closure, I will be shortly discussing my close with an un-involved sysop, active at ANRFC, following why you can drag me to AN:)Winged Blades^Godric 16:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is unacceptable that an RFC that failed to establish consensus to allow "(telenovela)" as an acceptable disambiguator can result in articles sitting at the disambiguator that it failed to establish consensus for. The "status quo" should only apply to the guideline, not the articles. They should never have been named in this manner in the first place, and need to be moved back in line with the long-established guideline. --wooden superman 16:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Godric asked me to weigh in on the situation. Here are my thoughts:

First and foremost, the banner on WP:NCTV says it is a guideline. The only policy is WP:TITLE, which says that pages should be appropriately named. I make this distinction because (to quote the banner) It is a generally accepted standard, not a rule that must be followed (i.e. occasional exceptions may apply).
Second, while I certainly agree that NCTV says When disambiguation is required, use (TV series)., it also lists a bunch of exceptions, and there is no explicit prohibition on (telenovela). This goes further with the "exceptions may apply".
Third, the question asked was "should we use (telenovela)", and the answer was "inconclusive" and NOT "no".

If it were a "hard no" as mentioned above, then yes everything would be immediately moved. But because we're keeping the status quo, the pages that used (telenovela) before the RFC have no different standing after the RFC (i.e. if a page was at (telenovela) and no one objected, it doesn't need to automatically be moved because of an inconclusive RFC).

Thus, I find that Godric's close is acceptable, and while you are welcome to move pages with (telenovela) dabs to (TV series) (to better conform with the written guideline), if you are reverted you need to get a consensus via RM. Primefac (talk) 17:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reasonable. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Primefac.Whilst I concurred with Alex on the guideline/policy and mentioned the difference between NC & Opposed myself, Primefac has highlighted an equally imp. 2nd pt. which I missed.To conclude, I will be not ammending my RFC closure any further.Regards:) Winged Blades^Godric 01:43, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac's understanding of the difference between a policy and a guideline is faulty. Whether the close was "acceptable" or not isn't the issue. Whether is well-worded and -reasoned, or likely to lead to problems and drama is the issue. You stubbornness on this simply going to lead to an RfC we ought not to bother having. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 22:26, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well....mileage varies.Winged Blades^Godric 02:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC) Winged Blades^Godric 02:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Cambridge University Law Society

Hi, I was looking at your helpful comments on other pages and was wondering if you could advise on whether this page meets the standards of Wikipedia articles or how it can be improved? Much appreciated! Arjundhar (talk) 08:45, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Arjundhar, Greetings:) I am currently looking at your draft.Will be commenting soon.Winged Blades^Godric 08:51, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks!! Arjundhar (talk) 09:05, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

{{U|Winged_Blades_of_Godric}, thank you for your helpful edits and for taking the time to read the draft. Hoping it gets through easier now.

Arjundhar (talk) 11:51, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See this

Here. –Ammarpad (talk) 20:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Was a bit surprised.Didn't expect that.Winged Blades^Godric 10:21, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of the template FilmAffinity

Hi!

You recently closed this discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2017_December_21 deciding that the template FilmAffinity should be deleted. I was wondering how you interpreted consensus since there are 4 deletes and 3 keeps. Moreover, the Wikipedia guidelines state that consensus depends on the quality of the arguments, not the quantity, and the ones that vote "delete" don't offer objective information or anything really valuable, even one user, according to Wikipedia guidelines, is showcasing incivility. I hope you can reconsider the deletion.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.61.46.126 (talk) 10:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cool story.Deletion Review is the way forward.Winged Blades^Godric 10:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 January 9. —Cryptic 10:56, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redacting logs

Hi, WBoG - just wondering if you saw this comment re: unblock-redact? ^{Atsme📞📧} 12:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Yes. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 12:58, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Integer is into quasi-ESP:)

Was following the entire thread closely.Winged Blades^Godric 14:20, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, just wondered. It was not my intention to make the proposal public just yet - still working out the kinks - and I also wasn't aware that we have a template for just that purpose. I do now thanks to a tenured editor who has since added the template. My response regarding your comment - the one you acknowledged as harsh - is "ouch!", but I thank you for your honesty. I don't agree with your position because I'm of the mind that it contradicts WP:AGF. I support innocent until proven guilty, benefit of the doubt, leniency and 2nd chances...possibly even a 3rd or 4th chance, depending on the extent of the offense. I have a very low level of tolerance toward sock puppetry. I also believe that GF collaboration between editors with opposing views such as you and I in this instance are a big part of what makes the project work.

^{Atsme📞📧} 15:48, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme:--I'm truly sorry if that felt harsh.But, in all fairness I could not slightly convince me to support 9&10.Absolutely agree with the last line, though disagreeing that we need to have a policy so that any sysop cannot block either of us.

Winged Blades^Godric 15:51, 9 January 2018 (U-->

KIS International School

Thanks for the copyvio tagging. Do you see anything I missed? I have flu and am not thinking straight and could use a second pair of eyes. Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:15, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Anna Frodesiak:--Oh....I missed at-least three copvio ranges:) Ought to have checked the history! See this, this and this.James removed one copy-vio but did not rev-del.

By the way, see this thread.And, wishing you a speedy recovery.Regards:)Winged Blades^Godric 12:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll check all this in the morn and tag any copyvio he uploaded if they need tagging. Many thanks! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:41, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Anna Frodesiak:--Marked the ranges:) Cheers!Winged Blades^Godric 12:56, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Conor Lamb

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Conor Lamb. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Casprings (talk) 04:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Intertwine"?

Was ist das? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:24, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I got it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:27, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Earwig? >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 10:06, 14 January 2018 (U

Stale CU data

I just thought I'd let you know that that doesn't come under Danny's department. They finally were a lot of help over the ACTRIAL, but not really willingly. There are no technical issues in extending the CU feature. It's standard MediaWiki stuff which is used on dozens of websites not connected in any way with Wikipedia. If anything, it's a legal thing in the US, but I run a lot of Internet projects that hold user data and it's kept for years. I can go back 10 years on phpBB forum software to smoke out socks - or for as long as my server has capacity. Our online stores keep data as long as we need for recurring customers. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung:--Definitely it isn't under Danny's purview but he can (probably) connect us to the right guys:).Also, AFAIK, this part. proposal has been discussed before off-wiki and was (likely) shelved due to factors incl. SanFran objections.Winged Blades^Godric 12:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry - it's being discussed right now off-Wiki ;) Driven by the pressures of paid editing, I'm optimistic that this year will see some important changes of several kinds. We now also have a fairly clear insight already as to who does what at the WMF. We'll be discussing all this more when ACTRIAL has run its term. That alone was a major breakthrough in Wikipedia history. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:13, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redflag:--Reply from WMF to be summarily posted.~ Winged Blades^Godric 03:52, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Touch Up

Please check the Draft:Animal Aid Unlimited and add some fine tunes. Thanks Souravdas1998 - talk to me? 08:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Will chime in.Sorry for the delay.~ Winged Blades^Godric 03:53, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

Done.Looks like a very-likely candidate to be despatched to AFD.~ Winged Blades^Godric 05:02, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indigenous psychology

How was my edit in indigenous psychology a copyrighted material? I just lifted up some parts of the Filipino psychology Wikipedia article. Isn't that allowed? I also checked Google and I cannot find similar entries. Thank you! Isko1901 (talk) 08:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Isko1901, after much confusion I've worked out what happened here. The text was originally on Filipino psychology, and was subsequently plagiarised by this 2013 blog post. You performed an unattributed cut-and-paste move of the text to Indigenous psychology. Since you (a) didn't attribute where you'd taken it from and (b) the text didn't include any references, when WBoG (correctly) looked to see where the text you'd added had come from, the 2013 post was shown as four years earlier than your post and he quite reasonably assumed that you'd plagiarised it yourself.

Please don't do this again. Despite what many people think, Wikipedia articles aren't in the public domain, and their authors retain the copyright on them; the material is just released under a licence that allows re-use with attribution to the original author(s). When you add text to a Wikipedia article from another Wikipedia page without saying exactly where you got it from, it's both legally and ethically no different to stealing photographs from random websites or copying text from books and passing it off as your own. While we do allow copying within Wikipedia, at the absolute minimum you need to use an edit summary saying exactly where the material you've copied came from. Copyright violation is an absolute red-line on Wikipedia, and WBoG acted entirely correctly in erring on the side of caution here. ‑ Iridescent 09:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever Iridescent said.I came from Copy-Patrol which had automatically flagged your addition as a copy-vio.On double-checking the content-match, there were no apparent reasons to believe that the detection was in error and I accordingly reverted the addition.It is only now, that I see the event to be a chain of two successive non-attributed copy-vios. Anyway all's well that ends well!Winged Blades^Godric 12:13, 16 January 2018 (U-->

Essay you may enjoy

Found this today after another discussion: WP:OFCOURSE. I think it nicely explains the nuances between numbers only and consensus based decision making. I was happy to see it, because I was going to write WP:NUMBERSMATTER at some point making similar arguments. No need to do that now. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni:--Good find:) As much as we say NOTVOTES and all, super-super-voting shall be actively discouraged.Whilst I am sort of meh bordering oppose on the RFC sub-part, as far as I can predict, none of the regular RFC closer(s) would be ever willing to go against 72% support.Winged Blades^Godric 05:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I supported it, but it wasn't that important, IMO. It does have the advantage of if there is proof someone lied, ArbCom would have a clearer ground to stand on in terms of action, which is in some ways equally as important as the transparency part (ArbCom doesn't make policy, so if someone had UPE'd before an RfA, it'd have to be a breach of trust decision, and those are more complex. This makes it clearer.)

Yes, as I said at WT:RFA, I think it is better to say that consensus is not only a vote, especially at policy RfCs. In local discussions, such as RMs or XfDs, it makes sense to close against numbers in some cases, but for policy discussions it very rarely does (though I can think of several examples where it would: unbundling access to deleted revisions being the obvious no go even if the community supported it. No amount of support could undo the fact that it would create a legal nightmare in the US, which is where the WMF is based, and the WMF would veto instantly if someone closed it in favour of the idea.) TonyBallioni (talk) 05:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, XFD's, RM's, RFC concerned with content-disputes shall be weighed per the underlying well-established guidelines and I've closed many against the majority.But discussions about too-fundamental changes, where the sole factor behind !voting is almost entirely common-sense, they ought not be closed against a majority except in abnormal circumstances of !vote-flooding by long-dormant accounts or widespread socking or abundance of votes that could be quite-agreed as plainly crazy or, as you mention, there is objection from San-Fransisco:)Winged Blades^Godric 05:52, 22 January 2018 (U-->

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Just so :) Cheers! >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 11:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Serial Number 54129:--Thanks! But color me confused as to the specific diplomacy that led to this bestowing:) Winged Blades^Godric 12:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's amazing, is it not, the names that appear in blue when you'd least expect them to. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 15:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen worse.Winged Blades^Godric 15:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And will continue to do so. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 15:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NPP Backlog Drive Appreciation

		Thank You
		Thank you for reviewing articles during the 2018 NPP New Year Backlog Drive. Always more to do, but thanks for participating. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 05:49, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.But I hardly did anything! Will look to put in some serious efforts in the ensuing days:)Winged Blades^Godric 07:02, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's why it's just a participation prize :) Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:24, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

My comments in my edit summary were not directed at you or in reference to your talk page note. I had not seen your talk page note when I had responded. I was responding to the comments on the arbcom page about my Wanton grudgery. I don't know Cass. Cass' civility is not something that should be handled by arbcom. As the first part of my comments would suggest, this is something that I feel that any admin can take care of if there is sufficient reason. The TAGTEAMing is the issue that I feel is of issue as it may suggest meatpuppetry. I describe who ever this alleged TAGTEAM is a gaggle of goons. I do not know who is in this tagteam. I really did not pay attention to who was listed nor do I care. Anyone offering hollow iVotes should be ignored when determining a consensus. A generic support vote with no comment or a comment that on some level is based on policy should be ignored. Anyway I digress. I apologies because it seems as if you took my actions as being directed at you and that was not my intention.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 16:52, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will extend you the benefit of doubt but in future, please do not partake in such volatile zones, if you are (even slightly) unsure about what you're speaking.Regards~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:02, 31 January 2018 (U-->

When a group of people are coming together at RFA to tagteam (suggested in the case) and they are also coming together in multiple other area (one labeled as etc) then it would be a real good idea to make sure meatpuppetry isn't going on while combing thru all of those diffs during an investigation. I'm apologizing not because I personally did anything wrong but because when I placed "Edited for sensitivity" in my edit summary you seem to have thought it was directed at you and your nice and rather actually polite attempt at a personal one on one discussion. Under the circumstances it would have been reasonable for you to have thought those comments were directed at you. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 15:41, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Our mileage vary.Anyways, redacted a part in my comment, at the case request.~ Winged Blades^Godric 05:18, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]